In Barrett v. United States (1897), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a person could be tried and convicted for murder in federal court even if they had already been acquitted of the same crime in state court, without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case involved Patrick Barrett who was charged with killing his wife on an American Indian reservation. Initially, he was tried and acquitted by a territorial court but later retried and convicted by a federal court because it held jurisdiction over crimes committed on reservations. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Barrett argued that his second trial violated double jeopardy protections; however, this argument was rejected as it determined that dual sovereignty allows separate sovereigns - state and federal governments - to prosecute individuals for identical offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrett v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of federal power. He contended that Congress did not have authority to regulate liquor sales on Native American reservations unless it was explicitly granted by treaty or statute, which he believed wasn't applicable in this case. Furthermore, he asserted that even if such authority existed, it should be exercised with respect for tribal sovereignty and self-governance rather than through unilateral imposition of federal laws. In his view, allowing states to enforce their own liquor laws on reservations would undermine these principles and potentially lead to abuses against Native Americans' rights and interests.